This study aimed to assess sex differences in predictors for becoming a current exclusive electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) user, current exclusive smoker, or current dual user (concurrent smoking and e-cigarette use). This longitudinal study included 2399 females and 2177 males who had tried neither cigarettes nor e-cigarettes at baseline and attended 57 middle schools in the three largest cities in Mexico. We estimated multinomial logistic models stratified by sex. At follow-up, the prevalence of current exclusive e-cigarette use was 6.4% for males and 5.5% for females; current exclusive smoking was similar among males (3.6%) and females (3.5%); dual use was 2.4% females and 1.8% males. In the adjusted model, current e-cigarette use among females was associated with baseline current drinking (ARR = 1.85; p < 0.05), having a job (ARR = 1.99; p < 0.05), higher technophilia (ARR = 1.27; p < 0.05), and higher positive smoking expectancies (ARR = 1.39; p < 0.05). Among males, only having friends who smoke cigarettes at baseline was a significant predictor of current exclusive e-cigarette use at follow-up (ARR = 1.44; p < 0.05). For both sexes, current exclusive smoking at follow-up was associated with baseline current drinking (male ARR = 2.56; p < 0.05; female ARR = 2.31; p < 0.05) and, among males, only with having a parent who smoked (ARR = 1.64; p < 0.05). For both sexes, dual use at follow-up was associated with baseline current drinking (male ARR = 3.52; p < 0.005; female ARR = 2.77; p < 0.05); among females, with having paid work (ARR = 2.50; p < 0.001); and among males, with parental smoking (ARR = 3.20; p < 0.05). Results suggested both common and different risk factors by sex, suggesting that interventions may need to consider targeting sex differences.

Introduction Several countries are considering a reduced nicotine policy that would make cigarettes minimally or non-addictive. This qualitative study documents reactions to the policy that should be addressed by future communication efforts. Methods In 2020, we recruited participants in Atlanta, GA and San Francisco, CA (27 people who exclusively smoke, 25 who dual use cigarettes and e-cigarettes, 32 who formerly smoked, and 31 young adults who do not smoke). We held 16 focus groups: 2 focus groups for each smoking status in each city. Participants viewed messages about very low nicotine content cigarettes (VLNCs) and were asked about their reactions to each message and their overall response to the reduced nicotine policy. Results While responses to the policy were predominantly positive, focus group discussion also revealed concerns, questions, and misunderstandings (referred to here collectively as “perceptions”) that may need to be addressed if a reduced nicotine policy is enacted. Participants expressed perceptions related to the policy intent, including that the FDA has ulterior motives, adoption/ implementation, including that nicotine would have to be replaced with other chemicals if removed or that the policy would be unfeasible to implement, and effectiveness, including concern that VLNCs would still be addictive or the policy would backfire. Conclusions Addressing perceptions about reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness could be key in creating public support and political motivation to move forward with such a policy. Countries contemplating adopting such a policy should consider pairing it with communications that address these perceptions. IMPLICATIONS This study is one of very few to use qualitative methods to explore potentially problematic perceptions about nicotine reduction policy among US adults. Results illuminated new policy-specific concerns, questions and misunderstandings about the reduced nicotine policy intent, adoption/implementation, and effectiveness. Identifying, studying, and addressing relevant perceptions may play a key role in generating support in countries contemplating such a policy.

BackgroundTo reduce smoking and the harms it causes, countries, including the USA, are considering policies to reduce nicotine in combustible tobacco to minimally addictive levels. Effective messages about very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs) and this policy are crucial in combating misperceptions threatening the policy’s effectiveness.Data and methodsA discrete choice experiment assessed messages about VLNCs. Participants were 590 adults who smoked exclusively, 379 adults who both smoked and used e-cigarettes, 443 adults who formerly smoked and 351 young adults who never smoked (total n=1763). Seven message attributes were varied systematically (source, harm, chemicals, nicotine, satisfaction, addictiveness and quitting efficacy). Outcomes were selection of messages that generated the most positive attitude towards reduced nicotine policy, the greatest perceived harmfulness of VLNCs, and most strongly motivated quitting and initiating behaviour for VLNCs.ResultsInformation about specific harms and chemicals of VLNCs had the largest effects on selection of messages as eliciting more negative attitudes towards VLNCs policy, increasing perceived VLNC harmfulness, increasing motivation to quit VLNCs and decreasing motivation to try VLNCs. Messages with information about quitting efficacy were selected as more motivating to quit among those who smoke, but also more motivating to try VLNCs among those who do not smoke.ConclusionHarm and chemical information can be prioritised to ensure VLNCs are not misperceived as less harmful than regular cigarettes. Messages about increased quitting efficacy and reduced addictiveness associated with VLNCs may backfire if presented to those who do not smoke.

While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s proposal to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes is gaining traction, it is still undetermined whether the policy will also include other combustible tobacco products, such as little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs), and how such a policy should be communicated given the patterns of use and perceptions around LCCs. This study examined perceptions of nicotine and addiction related to LCC use and involved data collection from eight semi-structured virtual focus groups conducted in Summer 2021 in the US. Participants were adults who reported past-30-day use of LCCs, consisting of African American males (n = 9), African American females (n = 9), white males (n = 14), and white females (n = 11). Participants discussed their perceptions of nicotine and addiction in general and in relation to LCC use. Inductive thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted. Differences across race and sex groups were examined. Participants did not consider nicotine to be a characterizing feature of LCCs; rather, they generally associated nicotine with cigarettes. Participants’ views of nicotine and addiction related to LCCs were discussed along four dimensions: context of use, frequency of use, the presence of cravings, and whether a product is modified (e.g., by adding marijuana). Social and infrequent use, a lack of cravings, and the use of LCCs for marijuana were considered indicative of a lack of addiction and reasons not to be concerned about nicotine in LCCs. Because perceptions of nicotine and addiction related to LCCs differ from those of cigarettes, communications about a reduced nicotine policy that includes LCCs should consider these differences to ensure the policy is understood by people who currently use LCCs and to prevent people who use cigarettes from switching to LCCs.